Samsung seeking German injunction against Apple's 3G products in Germany

In a reversal of its position that Apple is an aggressor trying to stifle competition with patent lawsuits, Google's Android licensee Samsung is initiating new efforts to ban Apple's 3G products in Germany using the same standards-based patent action Motorola has.

In a report covering Samsung's 3G-related patents against Apple on trial in Germany's Mannheim Regional Court, FOSS Patents reporter Florian Mueller noted that "the presiding judge indicated preliminary positions and inclinations that suggest the two German litigations tried today pose considerable risk to Apple but won't necessarily result in rulings that Samsung can effectively enforce against Apple's core products."

The two cases will be tried in late January. Right now, Apple and Samsung are arguing over what devices might be covered under the injunction Samsung seeks, which would include a prohibition of sales of iPhones and iPads incorporating 3G features. Apple is specifically working to proactively exclude the iPhone 4S from the litigation so as to avoid any real impact even if an injunction is granted.

The German court recently granted Motorola Mobility an injunction against Apple covering its German sales, but its unclear what impact that injunction actually could have. As in the case with Motorola, Samsung's claims against Apple relate to issues of patent exhaustion and FRAND licensing.

Patent Exhaustion

Samsung's latest case raises new questions for the court to sort out, including whether Apple is infringing patents that were licensed by the component manufacturers that built the baseband chips Apple uses in its iPhone and iPad.

Apple began building iPhones with Infineon baseband chips that were themselves licensed by Samsung. After Intel purchased Infineon's mobile technologies division, Apple continued using Infineon-branded chips built by Intel.

"It's possible that Intel's contract with Samsung is different from the one Infineon had," Mueller noted. At question is "patent exhaustion," whether Samsung can sue Apple for infringement in using Intel's version of the Infineon chips sold since January 2011, or whether Samsung's rights to sue over patents are "exhausted" after being licensed to a third party building the components.

Apple reportedly complained that Samsung "refused to provide detail" about its contract with Intel. With the CDMA iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S, Apple has shifted to using Qualcomm's baseband chips instead, which provide world mode features enabling the same chip to handle both GSM and CDMA-type mobile networks.

Samsung's claims of Apple's "infringement" of its 3G-related patents due to its use of licensed chips from Intel appears to be a desperate stab of a defense, and far different from Apple's infringement claims against Samsung, which are related to Samsung's "slavish copying" of Apple's designs and technologies.

FRAND Frenemies

A second major issue in the case, according to Mueller, is Samsung's use of standard-essential patents that have been committed to "Fair, Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory" licensing.

A Dutch court threw out Samsung's case for an injunction over FRAND patents because Samsung sued before even trying to reach a licensing agreement with Apple. But the Mannheim judge in Germany "stressed that a party requiring a license to standards-essential patents is responsible for obtaining one, and has to make an offer to the patent holder," Mueller reported.

Apple presented the court with public reports indicating that it buys $7-8 billion worth of Samsung components annually, noting that Samsung has never raised any infringement claims over any of its standards-essential patents "until it decided to retaliate for Apple's assertions of non-standards-related patents," Mueller stated.

Because Apple and Samsung are now engaged in patent cases in nine countries, Mueller notes that "it's not impossible that Samsung will prevail in some courts" with its FRAND patent suits. However, the outcome will likely be influenced by the European Commission's investigation into Samsung's efforts to use FRAND patents as weapons.

The German court is amenable to granting injunctions (as it did for Apple against Samsung's Galaxy Tab), and Mueller states that it is "not being particularly receptive to [Apple's] FRAND defenses," suggesting that the EC's investigation may result in "an opportunity to strengthen the rights of implementers of FRAND standards [like Apple] on a Europe-wide basis."

Google, Android and its rampant patent hypocrisy

Such a result would prevent efforts by Android licensees to use patents related to open standards as offensive weapons to counter actual infringement claims or promote monopolies among patent holders of standard-essential intellectual property that has been granted government exclusion from anticompetitive law under the understanding that its patent holders would license their patents fairly rather than trying to stop competitors with injunctions.

While complaining about patent licensing agreements tied to MPEG video technologies, Google has actively promoted the anticompetitive abuse of standards-essential wireless patents with its licensees Motorola Mobility, HTC and Samsung, even as it also decried the legitimate patent cases against Android's infringements as "hostile, organized campaign" of "attacks" by Apple, Microsoft and Oracle using what Google described as "dubious patents."

I always wonder what "patents" Samsung really have. I have play around my friends Samsung phone but it seems to me they are just a 'copycat' iPhone!\

Although i dont know the inside tech stuffs, but as a user, they offer nothing special or worst, perform worst than iPhone, so really dont know why they keep suing apple. Better still, they seems to have always lost the case and still wanna 'donate' money to the lawyers. Their lawyers must be very happy.

It seems like Samsung licensed it to Qualcomm who makes the chip.
Apple buys the chip from Qualcomm.
Samsung wants Apple to pay an additional license.
We buy the iphone from Apple containing that chip from Qualcomm.
Will Samsung come after us too?

This reminds me of an article I read a few months ago about a company going after hotels and small businesses over wi-fi patents. If the wifi router/access point manufacturers already licensed the technology, then sells us the products, why are we still liable? The patent holder in that case claims they will not go after end users and will limit their law suits to hotels and businesses. Should they even be able to go after end users at all?

I'm starting to see the same trend with this whole 3g patent thing happening with Samsung. If the patents were already licensed to Qualcomm to be used in those chips, then should Apple be required to license those patents again to use those chips they purchased from Qualcomm? If so, then what's to stop them from going after end users for a triple dip?

As the article notes, the Qualcomm chips are not in question here. This suit deals with the Infineon chips, used in Apple's 3G products.

Which were also licensed.

The question is if a company is purchased, are the licensing agreements still valid.
Common sense would suggest they should be since the chip they were licensed for hasn't changed, but we'll see what the law says.

I always wonder what "patents" Samsung really have. I have play around my friends Samsung phone but it seems to me they are just a 'copycat' iPhone!\

Although i dont know the inside tech stuffs, but as a user, they offer nothing special or worst, perform worst than iPhone, so really dont know why they keep suing apple. Better still, they seems to have always lost the case and still wanna 'donate' money to the lawyers. Their lawyers must be very happy.

This year 2011, Samsung is on target to surpass IBM for the #1 spot, a first in over a decade.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTR

Anybody else starting to feel that Samsung's legal shenanigans are starting to generate ill will for their brand?

While complaining about patent licensing agreements tied to MPEG video technologies, Google has actively promoted the anticompetitive abuse of standards-essential wireless patents with its licensees Motorola Mobility, HTC and Samsung, even as it also decried the legitimate patent cases against Android's infringements as "hostile, organized campaign" of "attacks" by Apple, Microsoft and Oracle using what Google described as "dubious patents."

Google are showing further what a bunch of hypocritical bastards they really are.

I get the sense the founders had a great vision for the company. I'd like to think they had pure aims, and values they can fall back on. Assuming this is true, they've obviously strayed far from their original charter.

Steve Jobs' recent advice to Larry Page may be the best advice anyone at Google will ever receive. I hope they heed it. I would love to see them get highly focused, and insanely great.

You better start by throwing out all your iDevices since they basically contain numerous Samsung-manufactured components. The irony and ignorance here is oh so overwhelming.

Wow, you have a knack for stating the obvious! You must be the only guy that knows there are Samsung components in Apple devices.....great sleuthing Einstein. How about this, Apple pays for those parts, do you feel it gives Samsung the right to outright copy Apple?

You better start by throwing out all your iDevices since they basically contain numerous Samsung-manufactured components. The irony and ignorance here is oh so overwhelming.

Apple makes it difficult to discern who makes the components in the iPhone on purpose. So you really can't bame him for not knowing. Blame it on the reality distortion field. Apple is a luxury brand. People don't get that.

Reading some of the comments here, you'd think Apple invented the smartphone, GUI, and tablet.

Society should really celebrate the inventors instead of copycats who take a look at Xerox PARC's GUI, copy it, and say they innovated it first. Or incorporate multi-touch technology into their products and then patent as many swipe gestures as they can because they innovated it. Sheesh.

Wow, you have a knack for stating the obvious! You must be the only guy that knows there are Samsung components in Apple devices.....great sleuthing Einstein. How about this, Apple pays for those parts, do you feel it gives Samsung the right to outright copy Apple?

But I thought you're done with Samsung products? The A4 and A5 processors, as well as certain flash memories were all Samsung-manufactured products. By knowingly buying Apple's iDevices, you are indirectly supporting Samsung in their quest to copy everything Apple.

Why do you hate Apple so? Why are you supporting Samsung in their quest to become the largest conglomerate corporation in the world?

Do you ever believe Samsung will want an injunction on Apple and then face heavy fines from European Commission?

They were really happy to let Apple not pay them all these years. Their sole goal seems to frustrate Apple by all these tactics.

Probably the main reason they have filed patent suits in so many countries. Some court will ask Apple to handle source code (they have already given source code in Australia), some will ask Apple to depose their top personnel, etc etc, end result being increased frustration for Apple.

Samsung has already started diverging from Apple designs in their new products ( Galaxy nexus, etc), none of their recent products is having bouncing animation ,etc.

By the time these lawsuits end,whether it wins or not, Apple would already have achieved what it wanted i.e Samsung and Other OEM's products having different enough designs and UIs. But it will also ensure,in the wake of all these discomfort/frustrations, that Apple will think multiple times before suing Samsung in future, especially with Steve gone.

Do you ever believe Samsung will want an injunction on Apple and then face heavy fines from European Commission?

They were really happy to let Apple not pay them all these years. Their sole goal seems to frustrate Apple by all these tactics.

According to the latest FOSSPatents news, Samsung appears to have a case and and may succeed in getting an injunction on offending Apple products in Germany.

To quote "The presiding judge was not particularly receptive to Apple's FRAND defense. Unlike the Dutch judge who told Samsung that there was no case for an injunction since it failed to make an offer to Apple on FRAND terms, the Mannheim judge cited the Orange Book decision of The Federal Court of Justice of Germany and stressed that a party requiring a license to standards-essential patents is responsible for obtaining one, and has to make an offer to the patent holder."

According to the latest FOSSPatents news, Samsung appears to have a case and and may succeed in getting an injunction on offending Apple products in Germany.

To quote "The presiding judge was not particularly receptive to Apple's FRAND defense. Unlike the Dutch judge who told Samsung that there was no case for an injunction since it failed to make an offer to Apple on FRAND terms, the Mannheim judge cited the Orange Book decision of The Federal Court of Justice of Germany and stressed that a party requiring a license to standards-essential patents is responsible for obtaining one, and has to make an offer to the patent holder."

According to the latest FOSSPatents news, Samsung appears to have a case and and may succeed in getting an injunction on offending Apple products in Germany.

To quote "The presiding judge was not particularly receptive to Apple's FRAND defense. Unlike the Dutch judge who told Samsung that there was no case for an injunction since it failed to make an offer to Apple on FRAND terms, the Mannheim judge cited the Orange Book decision of The Federal Court of Justice of Germany and stressed that a party requiring a license to standards-essential patents is responsible for obtaining one, and has to make an offer to the patent holder."

That's a silly argument. First, we don't know that Apple hasn't made an offer to Samsung at this stage. That evidence wouldn't be in Samsung's filing for a preliminary injunction.

Furthermore, it's too easy to get around:

Quote:

Dear Samsung,

We will give you $.01 per device for a perpetual license to your FRAND patents.

Your buddy,

Apple

Problem solved.

There's also the issue that what the judge is proposing is not standard practice anywhere in the world that I'm familiar with (Germany may be an exception so I won't say he's wrong). In everywhere based on English Common Law, at least, it is up to the infringed party to notify the infringer, not the other way around.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

But I thought you're done with Samsung products? The A4 and A5 processors, as well as certain flash memories were all Samsung-manufactured products. By knowingly buying Apple's iDevices, you are indirectly supporting Samsung in their quest to copy everything Apple.

Why do you hate Apple so? Why are you supporting Samsung in their quest to become the largest conglomerate corporation in the world?

Lots of people invest in these secondary companies, like Samsung. They might realize, for example, that it doesn't matter if Dell sells a lot of computers, or if HP sells a lot of computers, or if Gateway sold a lot of computers, because they were invested in Intel. Same thing with Alta Vista VS Yahoo Vs Google - they invested in Cisco.

These days, lots and lots of companies like Apple depend on Samsung for their parts. Without Samsung, they would have trouble making their devices, because Samsung has capabilitites matched by few others.

[QUOTE=Gatorguy;1986564]According to the latest FOSSPatents news, Samsung appears to have a case and and may succeed in getting an injunction on offending Apple products in Germany.

To quote "The presiding judge was not particularly receptive to Apple's FRAND defense. Unlike the Dutch judge who told Samsung that there was no case for an injunction since it failed to make an offer to Apple on FRAND terms, the Mannheim judge cited the Orange Book decision of The Federal Court of Justice of Germany and stressed that a party requiring a license to standards-essential patents is responsible for obtaining one, and has to make an offer to the patent holder."

Samsung, Motorola and Google appear to be playing a very dangerous game.

Following complaints from Apple, Samsung is already under investigation by the European Commission for breach of FRAND "Fair, Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory" licensing conditions. It appears that Motorola will also soon be under the same investigation, because this week they obtained a German injunction involving FRAND.

It appears evident that Google (the moving hand behind Motorola and partner of Samsung) is also part of this cartel ganging up in a discriminatory manner against Apple. Who else are these trust breakers suing for breach of these FRAND patents?

These companies are acting in precisely the opposite way they are supposed to under FRAND requirements, in what appears to be deliberate, blatant anti-trust conduct of the most agregious kind (as Apple describes it). The EU Commission who have enormous power, can impose fines of 10% of a company's annual turnover and issue directives which will overrule local Courts, like in Mannheim. Additionally, Apple may be able to claim enormous damages. Additionally, once the EU Commission finds serious anti-trust conduct, other jurisdictions such as the USA will be able to take similar action against the culprits. No government takes kindly to such anti-trust conduct.

Google could be in particular hot water, because they are a serial offender. They have already been found guilty of anti-trust behaviour by European countries. by the EU Commission and are under at least one other ongoing investigation.

They have tried to keep in the background, but Motorola may be their Achilles heel, because they are acquiring the company. It is almost certain that in the terms of the takeover agreement are conditions which require Motorola to obtain Google's consent for any binding agreements, legal actions or settlements, copies of which the EU Commission will be able to obtain, notwithstanding any confidentiality agreements. The takeover itself may become subject of an EU investigation.

Allowing Motorola to obtain an injunction against Apple based on FRAND. as happened last week, may be a masterstroke by Apple because it ties both Motorola and Google into the investigation.